Help! What does this mean?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Help! What does this mean?

    .....‘On any assignment of this lease (or underletting as the case may be) to obtain a direct covenant from such assignee or underlessee with the landlord to pay the rents hereinbefore reserved and observe and perform the tenant’s covenants and conditions hereby contained and such direct covenants shall be by way of the deed the form of which is set out in the seventh schedule hereto’...

    Background - a semi detached house separated in to two flats, each owners own the leasehold to their flat and the freehold as a whole (if that’s the correct terminology).
    I might want to rent out my flat, does this mean that I have to get permission from the other freeholder to do so? In the fact that any tenants need to follow the agreements as stated in the lease and tenants need to sign a lease agreement with ALL the freeholders rather than just me?

    hope this makes sense!

    Long lease is a 99 years or 125 Years rental agreement.(Tenant is registered title holder at Land Registry )
    AST agreement is a 1 or 2 years rental agreement, between the property owner and the monthly rental tenant

    The extract in the lease refers to annual ground rent which is payable under the terms of the Lease. If you sublet under AST agreement to a monthly tenant who pays monthly rent to you, you still remain the tenant under the Lease. I think your signature on the AST agreement is enough but don't rely on my advice, because I am not a solicitor.

    You should pay for legal advice from a solicitor who specialises in Landlord & Tenant Act matters or you can send a FOC enquiry to the Legal Advisor at LEASE (


      Agree with Gordon.


        The clause quoted does not imply anything beyond what it says, which is that an assignee or sub-tenant must enter inot a deed of covenant with the landlord. Any requirement that the landlord has to approve an underletting must be clearly specified.

        The clause quoted imposes an unreasonable obligation in respect of a short term sub-letting.


          What about this? I assume this means that any new renters/tenants will need to sign with the other flat leaseholders/freeholder that they will follow the covenants?


            I think you should consult a solicitor or the legal advisor at LEASE ( ) for correct meaning of your lease.


              Clause 2 does not make complete sense. How does it feature in the lease?


                Clause 2 is right at the end of the lease after the signatures


                  Is it in a schedule? If it is, find the clause in the lease which refers to the schedule and let us know what it says.


                    It’s under the Seventh Schedule and it says underneath ‘Deed of covenant’.
                    Before all the schedules start number seven says:
                    7. This is a new lease within the meaning of the landlord and tenant (covenants)Act 1995.


                      Still not making sense. I tried to send you a pm offering you the opportunity to send me a copy of the lease, but you have disabled the facility.


                        It means you must ensure your tenants abide by the conditions of the head lease surely?


                          Originally posted by Jon66 View Post
                          It means you must ensure your tenants abide by the conditions of the head lease surely?
                          That seems to be the intention, but the wording is all very strange.


                            Put it this way, the owner of the flat HAS to abide by all the covenants in the lease, the dos and do nots, therefore someone else using the same property will need to obey most of the covenants of the lease and the freeholders rules and regulations of the common parts.

                            Why should a renter be immune from obeying most of the lease terms when if the owner lives there, the owner has to obey every thing in the lease.
                            • Such as park only in your parking spot and not on the drive.
                            • Not to obstruct the egress to and from or over the driveway ( by parking a car on the driveway, that is not a parking space.)
                            • No ball games in the Garden.
                            • No BBQ's in the garden.
                            • No hanging of washing from windows.
                            • Keep all windows curtained.
                            • Not to do or permit to be done any act or thing which may render void or voidable the policies of the building insurance.
                            And the list goes on and on.

                            Why should a renter be able to flout the covenants and rules, when an owner living there cannot.

                            NOTE: The freeholder ( or RTM / RMC ) has NO contract with renters ( sub-tenant / underleasers ), as the AST is a contract between the owner ( leaseholder ) of the flat and the renters.
                            The freeholder has no jurisdiction over sub-tenants... only over the leaseholder.

                            Therefore, in order that the renters have to obey certain parts of the lease ( except ground rent and service charges ) they must sign a deed that they too, will be good people and obey that which is in the deed they sign to obey the lease.

                            **A judge once said "How can a sub-tenant be expected to comply with the lease conditions if they have not been given a copy of the relevant terms of the lease" ( case dismissed )

                            Without that deed the freeholder has to sue the owner of the flat, and in some cases, that will not work without that deed.
                            Such as renter leaves his car all over the place, obstructs access or makes it difficult to access, then without the deed you have to sue the leaseholder see **.
                            You go to court, you sue the leaseholder for breaching the lease on preventing egress to or from -- with a car.
                            The judge asks leaseholder "did you obstruct xxx and was it with your car. Leaseholder sates he did not, and he does not own that car -- again, case dismissed and renter free to cause havoc for 9 more months.

                            Freeholder has no hold over sub-tenants without that Deed ! ! !


                              Originally posted by ram View Post
                              Freeholder has no hold over sub-tenants without that Deed ! ! !
                              To put it in technical terms, there is no privity of contract or estate between a head landlord and a sub-tenant.

                              Clauses requiring a sub-tenant to comply with the terms of a head lease have only been introduced into long leases fairly recently. They are borrowed from commercial leases.

                              In a commercial lease which permits sub-letting they make some sort of sense, mainly because sub-leases may be for a long period. The exact form the covenant takes has to depend on factors such as the length of the head lease, its terms, and whether sub-letting of part is permitted. As a minimum, every such clause I ever saw excluded payment of rent. If the head lease is full repairing and the premises are suitable for sub-letting of part, then, for example, making a sub-tenant of part responsible for all repairs is not advisable and certainly inappropriate if the covenant is to extend to the whole of the premises. There may also be a whole range of other obligations imposed on the head tenant which it is inappropriate to impose on a sub-tenant of part.

                              When faced with a standard clause requiring a sub-tenant to covenant to comply with the head tenant's obligations, I used to amend it so that the obligation to be imposed on the sub-tenant is not to do anything which would be a breach of the head tenant's obligations in the head lease. That means that the head landlord can enforce against the sub-tenant all the restrictive obligations but not the positive ones, which is what a head landlord really wants so that he can exercise direct control over the sub-tenant's behaviour. The positive obligations can still be enforced against the head tenant.

                              Something along those lines is what the head landlord of a long lease of residential property should require if he thinks he really needs it. However, sub-tenancies of residential property are almost always going to be short term and many long leases run to dozens of pages. What the obligation ought be restricted to is a requirement to comply with the obligations in the nature of regulations which deal with day-to-day living. Even so, one does have to wonder just how useful a deed of covenant is to the head landlord. Whilst he has something to point to, is he really going to sue if a sub-tenant puts his rubbish in the wrong place? It is all over the top stuff.


                              Latest Activity


                              • I've breached my lease
                                by pcuk1979
                                Hi there. I hope someone can help me because I have been frantic with worry for 3 days now. This is a bit long!

                                I bought a leasehold flat in July 2014. Since I've been here, I have done everything to it to bring it up to a modern acceptable standard. Note that the floorpan of the property...
                                12-07-2020, 14:00 PM
                              • Reply to I've breached my lease
                                by sid1956
                                First of all, you should not be stating or implying to anyone, least of all your landlord, that you have breached the lease. An admission of a breach saves the landlord the trouble of having to determine that a breach has occurred and has no benefit whatsoever to you.

                                From your description...
                                12-07-2020, 21:15 PM
                              • Leaseholder refuses to pay into our bank account !?!?
                                by rfph1
                                Ok, the situation is this...

                                I am a director of the freehold management company for a small block of flats (other directors being leaseholders like myself).

                                Earlier this year we had some banking issues and changed from one of the big high street banks to an on-line bank....
                                10-07-2020, 17:36 PM
                              • Reply to Leaseholder refuses to pay into our bank account !?!?
                                by rfph1
                                thank you - the clarification on the need to accept cask is appreciated.

                                I'm aware that Tide has issues, but so to did out high street bank (complaint made to financial ombudsman pending)
                                12-07-2020, 18:40 PM
                              • Reply to I've breached my lease
                                by pcuk1979
                                Here's some more

                                Comply with and observes such regulations as the Council may from time to time make for the benefit of the owners and occupiers of the said flats and in particular but without prejudice to the foregoing to comply with the regulations made at the date hereof and set out...
                                12-07-2020, 15:58 PM
                              • Reply to I've breached my lease
                                by Macromia
                                For a start:
                                1. Any clause that says that you have to keep floors carpeted, or can't have wooden floors.
                                2. Any clause that states that you need inform the freeholder, and/or get freeholder's permission, for non structural alterations.
                                3. Any clause that requires you not to do anything...
                                12-07-2020, 15:24 PM
                              • Reply to I've breached my lease
                                by pcuk1979
                                I thought that ground floors only were allowed wooden floors.

                                And you're right, if I was in my buyer's shoes, I would hate the guy who sold them a flat with clearly weakened soundproofing qualities. I mean, it wasn't great anyway, but it was liveable.

                                What clauses should I...
                                12-07-2020, 15:04 PM
                              • Reply to I've breached my lease
                                by Macromia
                                Rather than withdrawing from the sale, you could just inform the buyers solicitor that you initially answered these questions thinking that they referred only to structural changes, but would like to inform them of the work that you have done.
                                It will then be up to the buyer whether they continue...
                                12-07-2020, 15:03 PM
                              • Reply to I've breached my lease
                                by pcuk1979
                                I also have no Building Regulations certificates, even though I may have decreased the acoustic and thermal properties of the building.
                                12-07-2020, 15:00 PM
                              • Reply to I've breached my lease
                                by Macromia
                                Nothing that you have said that you have done to your flat seems to breach the lease clauses that you have quoted - but that doesn't mean that you have breached clauses that you haven't quoted as you clearly haven't quoted all potentially relevant clauses in full.

                                It sounds more like the...
                                12-07-2020, 14:59 PM